I think our parallel discussion about fluent API is very relevant here. People using 3.2 milestones before even the first beta will cope with a version change. And a big API update is exactly the time to release a major new version number.
A number is just a label, but it says something about us and about the product. Release: 3.0M1 Date: 17 Jul 2007 Not only is it about time after 7 years to move to the next whole number, but not moving says a lot about lack of progress which isn't reflected in the reality of actual features. Ari On 2/10/2014 6:36am, John Huss wrote: > I agreed with sticking with 3.2. Since there isn't a major architecture > change 3.2 seems appropriate. The smaller version change makes it seem > less scary to people considering upgrading. > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> After this amount of time, I think renaming it will cause confusion >> when projects which are currently running 3.2 pre-final find no >> further 3.2 upgrades in the future. >> >> And we've set a new precedent with 3.0 and 3.1, so I think we're ok >> continuing down this this path. >> >> >> But I don't feel strongly enough that I'd vote against it. >> >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> >> wrote: >>> There were some suggestions to rename 3.2 release to just 4. I think >> this is a good idea, as historically each of our GA release was always a >> major thing. No matter whether we incremented the version by 1 or by 0.1. >> So just throwing this in here for a lazy consensus. >>> >>> Andrus >> > -- --------------------------> Aristedes Maniatis GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
